### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###

A necessary sacrifice?

Death did not achieve progress but suffering. Science, art, technology, medicine, mathematics, music... they bring progress, not death. How can one think death is progress or brings progress. Wars bring suffering, pain, regress, not progress. If energy spent in wars and killing was used constructively, we would see much more progress by now. Because death is always required. Look at the world wars! Through that death massive progress was achieved. How far would you go to save the world or humanity? That's my question. I could than apply this bad logic even to 2 vs 1. Needs of me and my friend outweight the need of you, so we should kill you? What kind of a need is that? Kill? What kind of 'progress' am I talking about? Why would any progress require killing someone? I.e. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. While everyone has a fear of death, is it wrong to kill in the name of progress?A necessary sacrifice?